Who would support a homosexual justice?

But, Ken, what reason is there to believe that she is conservative and pro-life? Because Bush appointed her? Because Bush appointed Roberts who still remains an unknown quantity (and Miers is even more so)? And what reason do we have to trust him on that account? I'm fully behind him on the war and other related things, but domestically he has shown himself to tend to out-Democrat the Democrats.

 

Ken,

I welcome Senator Reid's support for Miers.

That makes is sound like Reid "got on the bandwagon" when in fact he is the one who recommended her. Your statement makes it sound like Reid is being the "nice" guy by supporting Bush's choice when Reid simply got his way.

 

Joe,

You're exactly right. If Roberts or Miers either one turns out be another O'Connor or worse, I will be staying at home on election day. Bush campaigned on choosing another Scalia or Thomas--that's what he said, for Pete's sake. If either one turns out to be close to being a Scalia or Thomas I'll be campaigning for my primary choice.

 

Ken,

I don't say she isn't evangelical enough or intellectual enough. I am saying there is not much reason to believe that she is conservative enough. I'm not saying that she's not, but I am saying I'm not going to get excited over someone just because she goes to an evangelical church, though, sure, it is a hopeful sign, but not a lot to hang one's hat on. Frankly, I don't care if "The Bible-thumbing armies...make the elites in the Republican Party as uncomfortable as they make Maureen Dowd and Michael Moore." (from the article in the link you posted in the other thread you linked to) And I don't care if secular, but no less genuine conservatives make evangelicals uncomfortable, as long as the policy (and in the case of SCOTUS nominees, constitutional) views are conservative.

 

Ken,

Wouldn't it be best and wisest to wait and see how they do on the court before making electoral threats?

Please re-read my post. That was exactly my point, that if they turn out to be an O'Connor, from their performance on the Court, I will have lost a LOT of confidence in the GOP.

 

All of this handwringing by conservatives won't change the situation that either Miers is confirmed to the SCOTUS or else I believe that the GOP will weaken itself to the point that it will lose both the House and the Senate in November 2006.

If the GOP has weakened itself to the point that it is willing to nominate or accept a justice simply because she can get a majority of votes in the Senate, that it is not concerned over whether a SCOTUS nominee has the proper judicial philosophy then it is already a dying elephant. I'm not saying she is not a conservative, I am saying simply that I am concerned and it if is improper to be concerned about a nominee, that we should leap to and blindly support the President's nominees and be enthusiastic about them with no basis what have we come to as a party if we're not concerned about our own philosophy and whether it is safely in such a justice's hands? I'm confused as to why these are improper questions to ask.

At least if Miers is confirmed and does well on the SCOTUS then "all's well that ends well".

That's a big "if" at this point and there's nothing wrong with being cautious until it in fact ends well.

 

Which is a good segue (sp?) to perhaps getting this thread back on the topic of the general question of whether anyone here would support (or oppose) a homosexual Supreme Court nominee?

Please feel free to post anything, including replies to above posts, re the Miers nomination on a thread devoted to that topic.